Texas A&M International University

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education (BS)
Instructional Degree Program

Fall 2003
Assessment Period Covered

February 8, 2004
Date Submitted

Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose Linkage:
Institutional Mission Reference:
Texas A&M International University, a Member of The Texas A&M University System, is committed to the preparation of students for leadership roles in their chosen profession and in increasingly complex, culturally diverse state, national, and global society … Through instruction, faculty and student research, and public service, Texas A&M International University is a strategic point of delivery for well-defined programs and services that improve the quality of life for citizens of the border region, the State of Texas, and national and international communities.

College/University Goal(s) Supported:
The mission of the College of Education at Texas A&M International University is to provide for educators a comprehensive and coherent professional development system that links all aspects of the educational profession. Through educational experiences provided by this system, educators will be prepared to provide learner-centered instructional experiences that promote excellence and equity for all students in the field.

Intended Educational (Student) Outcomes:
1. Pre-service students in the educator preparation program will demonstrate an understanding of instructional design and assessment to promote student learning.

2. Student interns in the educator preparation program will demonstrate the skills related to implementing effective, responsive instruction and assessment.

3. Students completing the Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood Education will demonstrate knowledge of effective Language Arts/Reading principles.

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education (BS)
Instructional Degree Program

Fall 2003
Assessment Period Covered

February 8, 2004
Date Submitted

Intended Educational (Student) Outcome:
NOTE: There should be one form for each intended outcome listed. The intended outcome should be restated in the box immediately below and the intended outcome number entered in the blank spaces.

1. Pre-service students in the educator preparation program will demonstrate an understanding of instructional design and assessment to promote student learning.

First Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
1a. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
The average score of students in the educator preparation program will be 70% or a minimum of 240 on Domain I (Designing Instruction and Assessment to Promote Student Learning) of the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) Texas Examination of Educator Standards (TExES).

1a. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Out of a population of 57 students, only 49 took the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) Test of the new Texas Examination on Educator Standards (TExES) during the Fall term of 2003. The remaining eight students either took the Examination for Certification of Educators in Texas (ExCET) or had not tested at the time this report was prepared. On average, the students who took the PPR Examination obtained 77.2% of the items correct on Domain I. An analysis of the students' performance on the four competencies comprising Domain I indicated that their two strongest areas were Competency #3 (Understands how to design effective instruction and assessment procedures) with 80.29% accuracy and Competency #2 (Understands and applies concepts related to student diversity) with 79.45% accuracy. On Competency #1 (Understands and applies human developmental processes), students demonstrated 77.29% accuracy and 71.78% accuracy on Competency #4: (Understands and applies learning processes and factors to plan effective instruction and assessment). Despite these differences, students' performance on Domain I and the respective competencies indicates that they exceeded the 70% criterion.

1a. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
Students' performance data will be shared with and examined by appropriate faculty to determine how best to incorporate these components into the teaching-learning experiences provided by the educator preparation program. TExES data will also be disaggregated by levels of certification sought (i.e., Early Childhood-4^th grade, 4^th-8^th grade, and 8^th-12^th grade) and by specializations within each of these certification levels to help faculty identify program strengths and areas that need modification.

Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
1b. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
At the pre-service interview to enter the teaching internship, students in the teacher preparation program will provide evidence of knowledge of instructional design and assessment with a score of 90% or better, as determined by a committee of public school personnel and College of Education Supervising faculty who will use a rubric developed for this purpose.

1b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Block II data collected from 65 students through the use of the Internship Interview Rubric indicated that 64 (98%) of the students successfully participated in the interview process and were subsequently admitted into the internship experience. During this interview, students demonstrated appropriate knowledge of instructional design and assessment. Of the 65 students interviewed, three were identified as needing to strengthen their understanding of how to successfully work with students having special needs, two were identified as needing to strengthen their understanding of the learner-centered proficiencies, two were identified as needing to strengthen their understanding of authentic assessment, and one was identified as needing to strengthen his / her understanding of multiple intelligences.

1b. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
The data mentioned above will be shared with program faculty to determine how best to incorporate it into the educator preparation program. As needed, program faculty will also examine and revise the various means of assessment used at this point in the educator preparation program in order to better identify program strengths and weaknesses.

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education (BS)
Instructional Degree Program

Fall 2003
Assessment Period Covered

February 8, 2004
Date Submitted

Intended Educational (Student) Outcome:
NOTE: There should be one form for each intended outcome listed. Intended outcome should be restated in the box immediately below and the intended outcome number entered in the blank spaces.

2. Student interns in the educator preparation program will demonstrate the skills related to implementing effective, responsive instruction and assessment.

First Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
2a. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
The average score of students completing the educator preparation program will be at or near 85% on the Field Performance Evaluations, with no score lower than 65%.

2a. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Data collected from 57 students during the Fall 2003 semester through the use of the Field Performance Evaluations revealed that their scores ranged from 70 to 100 and that the mean for the group was 89.6. Students were particularly capable of maintaining positive rapport with the students and communicating information in an accurate, clear, and logical manner to their students. A trend observed among some students is that they need to make sure that students are attentive before beginning the lesson or giving directions. In addition, they need to question students in a variety of ways to promote critical thinking. Overall, the desired performance standard was exceeded.

2a. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
The data mentioned above will be shared with program faculty to determine how to best incorporate these insights into the educator preparation program. Program faculty will also re-examine and possibly revise the assessment instrument used at this point in the educator preparation program to help them identify program strengths and areas of need.

Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
2b. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
At the Portfolio Review, students completing the educator preparation program will provide evidence of their ability to apply principles of instructional design and assessment with a score of 85% or better, as determined by a team of Field Supervisors using a common rubric.

2b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
During the Fall 2003 term, 57 Block III students prepared and presented their portfolios for evaluation. Ninety-eight percent (56) of the 57 students earned a score of 80% or higher on their portfolios. The other student obtained a score of 74%. The average score obtained by the 57 students was 96.3%. As a part of the portfolio presentation, students demonstrated an appropriate understanding of instructional design and assessment.

2b. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
A team of educators working with the educator preparation program will re-examine the rubric used to assess students' performance on their portfolios to determine if any modifications to the rubric and/or program are needed. This team of educators will research different types of rubrics used to assess e-portfolios and will create a rubric to be utilized for e-portfolios with Block I students during the Fall 2004 term, Block II students during the Spring 2005 term, and Block III students during the Fall 2005 term. The rubric will then be used to help educators monitor program strengths and areas of need.

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education (BS)
Instructional Degree Program

Fall 2003
Assessment Period Covered

February 8, 2004
Date Submitted

3. Students completing the Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood Education will demonstrate knowledge of effective Language Arts/Reading principles.

First Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
3a. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
The average score of students on the Generalist EC-4^th grade, TExES 101 exam, Domain I will be at the passing standard.

3a. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Only one student who completed Block III in the fall of 2003 majored in Early Childhood Education. The student completed the self-assessment survey measuring knowledge of the competencies on Domain I of the EC-4 standards.

Mean scores for the competencies ranged from a low of 3 to a high of 4 on a Likert-type four-point scale with a score of “1” indicating no knowledge and a score of “4” indicating a great deal of knowledge. The overall mean score was 3.69. A score of “3” indicates “adequate knowledge.” Since our objective was that students would have an mean of “3” on these competencies, the objective was achieved..

Additional TExES data from Fall 2003 indicate that 11 students took the Early Childhood – 4^th Grade Generalist Exam. The passing standard on this exam is 70. All students exceeded this standard; the scores ranged from 73 to 92 and the mean was 80.64.

3a. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
Although no competency score fell below “3”, results from the survey allow us to pinpoint potential areas of strength and weakness. Those competencies rated the highest were those having to do with “literacy development,” “word analysis,” “writing conventions” and “assessment,” all of which were rated with a mean score of 4. The competency rated the lowest was phonological/phonemic awareness, with a score of 3. Since this area was also rated lower in the spring of 2003, our courses will need to emphasize this competency more. Reviewers discovered that this student consistently rated lower those items having to do with differences in instructional methods for English language learners. For example, the student rated as 2 (a little knowledge) the area involving differences in phonological awareness, alphabetic knowledge, and ways to address the needs of English Language Learners written communication. Modifications for English language learners should be addressed in all reading courses. The information mentioned above will be incorporated into courses leading to Early Childhood – 4^th Grade Teacher Certification.

Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
3b. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
On the Questionnaire for Early Childhood Students, students will demonstrate knowledge of effective Language Arts/Reading principles with an average score of 3 on a Likert scale of 1 – 4 on their knowledge of TExES exam 101, Domain I competencies.

3b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Only one student who completed Block III in the fall of 2003 majored in Early Childhood Education with a specialization in reading. The student completed the self-assessment survey measuring knowledge of the competencies on Domain I of the EC-4 standards.

Mean scores for the competencies ranged from a low of 3 to a high of 4 on a Likert-type four-point scale with a score of “1” indicating no knowledge and a score of “4” indicating a great deal of knowledge. The overall mean score was 3.69. A score of “3” indicates “adequate knowledge.” Since the objective was that students would have a mean of “3” on these competencies, objective was achieved.

3b. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
Although no competency score fell below “3” results from the survey allow us to pinpoint potential areas of strength and weakness. Those competencies rated the highest were those having to do with “literacy development,” “word analysis,” “writing conventions” and “assessment,” all of which were rated with a mean score of 4. The competency rated the lowest was phonological/phonemic awareness, with a score of 3. Since this area was also rated lower in the spring of 2003, courses will need to emphasize this competency more. In reviewing individual items, this student consistently rated lower those items having to do with differences in instructional methods for English language learners. For example, the student rated as 2 (a little knowledge) differences in phonological awareness, alphabetic knowledge, and addressing ELL students’ needs in written communication. Modifications for English language learners should be addressed in all reading courses. Use of this scale will be continued in the Spring semester of 2004, since it is difficult to generalize about a program based upon the responses of one student.